Jump to content

Proximity rule should not be affected by a multi-stage


Recommended Posts

All this radius and diameter talk reminded me that tommorow is Pi day. :rolleyes:

Yes but in this discussion pie are squared despite the circles.

Actually, pie are triangled and consumed...with whipped topping!

 

You try to place a cache near the end of a multi with out knowing the multi or puzzle cache ends there

 

You figure out the multi and the containers gross it hasn't been checked on and has no history or value and your looking at a cache you would put there that has history nice container might be maintained a bit better learn new facts etc

If the cache is in bad shape, log a NM on it. If the owner doesn't fix it, log an NA. Crying about how the cache sucks compared to the cache you'd place there instead isn't going to accomplish anything.

Link to comment

All this radius and diameter talk reminded me that tommorow is Pi day. :rolleyes:

Yes but in this discussion pie are squared despite the circles.

Actually, pie are triangled and consumed...with whipped topping!

 

You try to place a cache near the end of a multi with out knowing the multi or puzzle cache ends there

 

You figure out the multi and the containers gross it hasn't been checked on and has no history or value and your looking at a cache you would put there that has history nice container might be maintained a bit better learn new facts etc

If the cache is in bad shape, log a NM on it. If the owner doesn't fix it, log an NA. Crying about how the cache sucks compared to the cache you'd place there instead isn't going to accomplish anything.

 

And, if you don't think the reviewer is acting fast enough, get your grandmother from out of town to post a NA too.

Link to comment
You figure out the multi and the containers gross it hasn't been checked on and has no history or value and your looking at a cache you would put there that has history nice container might be maintained a bit better learn new facts etc

 

If your cache has was just placed it has no history yet either. Unless you mean talking about history on the cache page.

 

"An existing crappy cache is blocking me from placing a new good cache" happens plenty with Traditionals too. In fact, I'd say it happens much more. Not just because they are more prevent but because they require less effort to create. Every time I find a cache in a park or natural area that d even mention that anywhere in the description I mutter in frustration under my breath. And then I move on.

Link to comment

I can't believe that you didn't believe toz knew about pie day!!! My world is blown...into 3.14159... pieces!!!

 

:unsure: Apparently, I'm the only one who did not know about pie day. It's nothing against Toz; I should have figured that if anyone knew about it, he would. I'm just waiting for national donut day, myself.

Friday, June 7th...

Link to comment

What I see here is the modern American concept of "Entitlement".

Laws don't apply to me! They only apply to you!

I'm in a hurry. I'll go through the red light. Laws don't apply to me.

I'm in a hurry. I'll do 85 on the Interstate. Get out of my way! Laws don't apply to me!

I want to hide a cache here, but there's a stage of a multi too close. Guidelines should not apply to me!

Great attitude to be teaching the kids! Guidelines and laws don't apply to them either! They can do anything they want.

Link to comment
You figure out the multi and the containers gross it hasn't been checked on and has no history or value and your looking at a cache you would put there that has history nice container might be maintained a bit better learn new facts etc

 

If your cache has was just placed it has no history yet either. Unless you mean talking about history on the cache page.

 

"An existing crappy cache is blocking me from placing a new good cache" happens plenty with Traditionals too. In fact, I'd say it happens much more. Not just because they are more prevent but because they require less effort to create. Every time I find a cache in a park or natural area that d even mention that anywhere in the description I mutter in frustration under my breath. And then I move on.

Hahahahaha I mean history you know you place a cache there because the bridge was constructed in what ever year the queen was here or what ever something of historical value..... Than there should be some guidelines not allowed to put out a cache if you have less than hundred finds has to be proper guidelines which half of these containers aren't like in BC Parks surprises honestly were allowed to place caches in parks.

Link to comment

All this radius and diameter talk reminded me that tommorow is Pi day. :rolleyes:

Yes but in this discussion pie are squared despite the circles.

Actually, pie are triangled and consumed...with whipped topping!

 

You try to place a cache near the end of a multi with out knowing the multi or puzzle cache ends there

 

You figure out the multi and the containers gross it hasn't been checked on and has no history or value and your looking at a cache you would put there that has history nice container might be maintained a bit better learn new facts etc

If the cache is in bad shape, log a NM on it. If the owner doesn't fix it, log an NA. Crying about how the cache sucks compared to the cache you'd place there instead isn't going to accomplish anything.

 

And, if you don't think the reviewer is acting fast enough, get your grandmother from out of town to post a NA too.

Ya I'll get my grandmother on her last legs dieng of cancer to go and need m. That uhhh little ridiculous getting your grandmother involved.. Haha

Link to comment

All this radius and diameter talk reminded me that tommorow is Pi day. :rolleyes:

Yes but in this discussion pie are squared despite the circles.

Actually, pie are triangled and consumed...with whipped topping!

 

You try to place a cache near the end of a multi with out knowing the multi or puzzle cache ends there

 

You figure out the multi and the containers gross it hasn't been checked on and has no history or value and your looking at a cache you would put there that has history nice container might be maintained a bit better learn new facts etc

If the cache is in bad shape, log a NM on it. If the owner doesn't fix it, log an NA. Crying about how the cache sucks compared to the cache you'd place there instead isn't going to accomplish anything.

 

And, if you don't think the reviewer is acting fast enough, get your grandmother from out of town to post a NA too.

Ya I'll get my grandmother on her last legs dieng of cancer to go and need m. That uhhh little ridiculous getting your grandmother involved.. Haha

 

woosh

Link to comment

All this radius and diameter talk reminded me that tommorow is Pi day. :rolleyes:

Yes but in this discussion pie are squared despite the circles.

Actually, pie are triangled and consumed...with whipped topping!

 

You try to place a cache near the end of a multi with out knowing the multi or puzzle cache ends there

 

You figure out the multi and the containers gross it hasn't been checked on and has no history or value and your looking at a cache you would put there that has history nice container might be maintained a bit better learn new facts etc

If the cache is in bad shape, log a NM on it. If the owner doesn't fix it, log an NA. Crying about how the cache sucks compared to the cache you'd place there instead isn't going to accomplish anything.

 

And, if you don't think the reviewer is acting fast enough, get your grandmother from out of town to post a NA too.

Ya I'll get my grandmother on her last legs dieng of cancer to go and need m. That uhhh little ridiculous getting your grandmother involved.. Haha

 

woosh

:laughing:

Link to comment

What I see here is the modern American concept of "Entitlement".

Laws don't apply to me! They only apply to you!

I'm in a hurry. I'll go through the red light. Laws don't apply to me.

I'm in a hurry. I'll do 85 on the Interstate. Get out of my way! Laws don't apply to me!

I want to hide a cache here, but there's a stage of a multi too close. Guidelines should not apply to me!

Great attitude to be teaching the kids! Guidelines and laws don't apply to them either! They can do anything they want.

 

Exactly what I was thinking! biggrin.gif

Link to comment

What I see here is the modern American concept of "Entitlement".

Laws don't apply to me! They only apply to you!

I'm in a hurry. I'll go through the red light. Laws don't apply to me.

I'm in a hurry. I'll do 85 on the Interstate. Get out of my way! Laws don't apply to me!

I want to hide a cache here, but there's a stage of a multi too close. Guidelines should not apply to me!

Great attitude to be teaching the kids! Guidelines and laws don't apply to them either! They can do anything they want.

 

Exactly what I was thinking! biggrin.gif

 

most peeps don think cause they no lots of stuff and do whaeveh and nobody can stop them plus everyone ignores laws anyhow when your driving the speed limit is silly

Link to comment

It's not the first time we hid a cache like this. In fact of our 6 (now 5 because of muggles) hides only one was pre-planned where we used the website to mark the location from home. All others were hidden spontaneously via smartphone.

 

You win some you lose some. If you aren't willing to work with the reviewer to find out how far and in which direction to move your cache and return to move it then you probably aren't willing to go back and maintain it. Maybe post the coords here and someone who has solved the puzzle can tell you which direction to go and how far.

 

I have tried working with the reviewer... he/she is not helping me here at all.

 

I have also contacted the other CO, I just sent my second message, although I now suspect my first one never actually went through since we didn't get the confirmation email.

Link to comment

I have tried working with the reviewer... he/she is not helping me here at all.

 

I have also contacted the other CO, I just sent my second message, although I now suspect my first one never actually went through since we didn't get the confirmation email.

 

So will you be considering any of the other alternatives offered here over the last couple of days?

Link to comment

So a couple of comments on this.

 

Just because it's a rule doesn't mean it's a good rule.

Very true. Bad rules should go away. We get that.

Good rules should not go away.

So, how would one define a rule as either good or bad?

Who decides? The person who pouts the most? Or the company that runs the site?

One method would be to wait till an entitlement junkie complains about it.

Cacher XXXX doesn't like this rule. Ergo, it must be bad...

Or, we could look at the history of the rule and its effect on the game.

Has it had a positive or negative effect for most players?

In the case of the proximity rule, I would tend to lean toward positive.

 

We live in a society that adapts daily,

An interesting analogy, seeing as how you refuse to adapt...

 

Wow... we live in a democracy, and that screams of communism.

I was not aware there were any functioning democracies on the planet.

I'm curious how you managed to get your 5 vacation caches published?

Since the country they reside in is a Republic, not a Democracy, one must assume you live somewhere outside the continental US?

 

2) As long as its listed on a site and discoverable makes it not-trash.

So, along with teaching your kids to give up at the first sign of difficulty, you can now teach them the joys of being spiteful & petty, just so you don't have to overcome a relatively minor obstacle? Awesome parenting skills...

 

They want the instant gratification to find a cache.

Our society is sliding ever closer to the "Gimme! Gimme Now!" state. You have an opportunity to teach your kids something other than instant gratification. And you stubbornly refuse to embrace that opportunity?

 

If your children do not enjoy something, you need to find a way to get them to enjoy

And for some reason, you are unwilling to apply this philosophy to geocaching?

 

I also forgot to mention this. The cache in which we are offending is this: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCWQ3B

Looks like a way kewl cache! Too bad it's on the other side of the Republic.

 

Last I checked, teaching your kids about witchcraft isn't exactly smart.

I wasn't aware that educating children was a bad thing...

The stuff you learn on the forums...

 

but the guidelines when put into place, certainly did not consider anything like the situation I am faced.

They were created precisely to consider the situation you face.

 

I take great offsense to this, and can't help but see your complete ignorance of the country you live in. Perhaps you're republican, and still upset about the democratic process which elected a candidate from the democratic party. You insist the USA is not a democracy but rather a republic. Obviously you have never traveled to other countries which are indeed a republic. You claim the world is into this gimme gimme gimme, state, yet you can't appreciate the fact that you live in a country where you are free to speak your mind, and challenge the status quo for the better of all. Before Rosa Parks it was a guideline that black people sit at the back of the bus. BUt she wanted her gimme gimme gimme, and a few years later we realized that guideline was short sighted and indeed incorrect. Her right to free speech, living in a democratic society helped her to her cause, and today we are better than where we were 50 years ago. Society's guidelines change when a person with strong conviction sees they are wrong, and fights for that change.

Link to comment

These aren't society's guidelines (much less laws), they are geocaching's (and specifically Groundspeak's).

 

I agree bad laws/guidelines should change, but I don't see a compelling argument here.

 

Guideline: all physical stages of all caches affect proximity (only exception is stages within a multi don't affect each other)

 

Pros: limits saturation, avoids accident/incorrect finds, consistent proximity limit on all caches.

 

Cons: non-Traditional caches make it more difficult for hiding caches because extra work is required to avoid proximity issues.

 

Inconveniences exist when hiding caches. PMO caches are also an issue for basic members, unpublished caches may interfere, you may need explicit permission (which may be a long slow process).

 

The Guidelines exist to prevent problems, not make it possible for every cache every person wants to hide to get published.

 

You feel the Cons outweigh the Pros. Most cachers here disagree with you.

Link to comment

These aren't society's guidelines (much less laws), they are geocaching's (and specifically Groundspeak's).

 

I agree bad laws/guidelines should change, but I don't see a compelling argument here.

 

Guideline: all physical stages of all caches affect proximity (only exception is stages within a multi don't affect each other)

 

Pros: limits saturation, avoids accident/incorrect finds, consistent proximity limit on all caches.

 

Cons: non-Traditional caches make it more difficult for hiding caches because extra work is required to avoid proximity issues.

 

Inconveniences exist when hiding caches. PMO caches are also an issue for basic members, unpublished caches may interfere, you may need explicit permission (which may be a long slow process).

 

The Guidelines exist to prevent problems, not make it possible for every cache every person wants to hide to get published.

 

You feel the Cons outweigh the Pros. Most cachers here disagree with you.

Nice!

Link to comment

1. It's a company's discussion forums for a hobby -- the website and the forums aren't controlled by the government. If people wish to debate whether the USA is a republic or a democracy (or something else), please open a thread in the Off Topic forum. Political talk in this thread is finished.

 

2. Fur and The Boys, your reviewer told you in the very first note about which cache was causing the conflict. That gives you enough information to solve the problem, whether by finding the cache or contacting the owner. You are unlikely to receive a positive answer to your request for the exact coordinates of the conflicting multicache stage. That would expose the reviewer to a second forum thread where the cache owner comes in to complain about the spoiling of confidential information provided to the reviewer. Please don't put your reviewer in that position.

Link to comment

2. Fur and The Boys, your reviewer told you in the very first note about which cache was causing the conflict. That gives you enough information to solve the problem, whether by finding the cache or contacting the owner. You are unlikely to receive a positive answer to your request for the exact coordinates of the conflicting multicache stage. That would expose the reviewer to a second forum thread where the cache owner comes in to complain about the spoiling of confidential information provided to the reviewer. Please don't put your reviewer in that position.

 

Thread seems kinda pointless now. Not only have all the reasonable suggestions been rejected, it turns out it was a non-issue to begin with as the reviewer at already worked it out for the OP.

Link to comment

The original complaint in this thread was the common issue that the proximity guidelines make it difficult for some to hide a caches if many of what appear to be open areas on the map are in fact out of play due to a hidden waypoint from a multi-cache or a puzzle.

 

Currently the only approach for someone like the OP is to ask a reviewer if a location is taken. This of course takes time and removes the spontaneity of hiding a cache while in an area looking for other caches.

 

I made a suggestion that would allow hidden waypoints to be treated differently, and argued that this would not only reduce the chances for a traditional being blocked by a hidden waypoint, but would also benefit the owners of caches with hidden waypoints by making it harder to brute force a solution by noting the distances from neighboring caches. It would even make it harder to play battleship by asking a reviewer repeatedly whether a location was taken (or at a minimum make it more obvious to a reviewer when someone is playing battleship).

 

However the OP has decided that the argument is not what can be done to the guidelines to deal with the problems due to hidden waypoints, but rather that hidden waypoints are trampling on her constitutional rights to place a cache and are proof that geocaching doesn't care about chindlren. Mothers (and sometimes fathers) whose child is being "denied" a cache placement because of the guidelines, tend to not be very receptive to ideas on how to proceed. Instead they turn into pit-bulls with lipstick (sorry, I believe it was a Republican who first coined that metaphor).

Link to comment

However the OP has decided that the argument is not what can be done to the guidelines to deal with the problems due to hidden waypoints, but rather that hidden waypoints are trampling on her constitutional rights to place a cache and are proof that geocaching doesn't care about chindlren. Mothers (and sometimes fathers) whose child is being "denied" a cache placement because of the guidelines, tend to not be very receptive to ideas on how to proceed. Instead they turn into pit-bulls with lipstick (sorry, I believe it was a Republican who first coined that metaphor).

Which brings us back to my post #46

Link to comment

Bearing in mind we have other threads on here mentioning co-ords being inaccurate and several threads from prospective COs annoyed at the proximity rule (there was one where it was down to 12 feet I read last week, can't find the thread right now) - I know what I'd do... I'd just submit co-ords that were 529ft from the nearest cache (keeping the reviewer happy) but make my hint / spiel helpful enough that cachers just forget the slightly inaccurate co-ords. Then everyone's a winner.

Link to comment

Bearing in mind we have other threads on here mentioning co-ords being inaccurate and several threads from prospective COs annoyed at the proximity rule (there was one where it was down to 12 feet I read last week, can't find the thread right now) - I know what I'd do... I'd just submit co-ords that were 529ft from the nearest cache (keeping the reviewer happy) but make my hint / spiel helpful enough that cachers just forget the slightly inaccurate co-ords. Then everyone's a winner.

 

Yeah, that's MUCH better and easier as well as sets a FAR better example for newer players than just following the guidelines and finding another spot. <_<

Link to comment

More pragmatic - and playing devil's advocate - than lacking integrity, I like to think. Rules are rules I know - and if you start allowing 516ft then next time it's 515, etc etc. Have to admit that after 10 years of living in France, circumventing rules is something I've kind of picked up.

That said - I want to put out 3 caches in my new home town, which is pretty saturated already at least in the centre. So I've used common sense and gone for places on the edge - one of which is in a nature reserve belonging to an organisation that had banned caching (a dormouse nest was disturbed 8 years ago). So I wrote to them asking if they'd reconsider and bingo, they have. I will make a cache page that encourages people to visit the site and make it clear the cache is accessible from the path and no dormouse trampling will be tolerated. Then I really think I'll stop at 3 - as people have said in so many threads, quality rather than quantity eh?

Link to comment

Bearing in mind we have other threads on here mentioning co-ords being inaccurate and several threads from prospective COs annoyed at the proximity rule (there was one where it was down to 12 feet I read last week, can't find the thread right now) - I know what I'd do... I'd just submit co-ords that were 529ft from the nearest cache (keeping the reviewer happy) but make my hint / spiel helpful enough that cachers just forget the slightly inaccurate co-ords. Then everyone's a winner.

 

Actually, when someone knowingly and intentionally breaks the guidelines, no one's a winner.

Link to comment

Bearing in mind we have other threads on here mentioning co-ords being inaccurate and several threads from prospective COs annoyed at the proximity rule (there was one where it was down to 12 feet I read last week, can't find the thread right now) - I know what I'd do... I'd just submit co-ords that were 529ft from the nearest cache (keeping the reviewer happy) but make my hint / spiel helpful enough that cachers just forget the slightly inaccurate co-ords. Then everyone's a winner.

 

Actually, when someone knowingly and intentionally breaks the guidelines, no one's a winner.

^ ^ ^

This.

 

Is finding a way to cheat and get around the rules a habit we really want to teach our children?

 

--Larry

Link to comment

The original complaint in this thread was the common issue that the proximity guidelines make it difficult for some to hide a caches if many of what appear to be open areas on the map are in fact out of play due to a hidden waypoint from a multi-cache or a puzzle.

 

Currently the only approach for someone like the OP is to ask a reviewer if a location is taken. This of course takes time and removes the spontaneity of hiding a cache while in an area looking for other caches.

 

I made a suggestion that would allow hidden waypoints to be treated differently, and argued that this would not only reduce the chances for a traditional being blocked by a hidden waypoint, but would also benefit the owners of caches with hidden waypoints by making it harder to brute force a solution by noting the distances from neighboring caches. It would even make it harder to play battleship by asking a reviewer repeatedly whether a location was taken (or at a minimum make it more obvious to a reviewer when someone is playing battleship).

 

However the OP has decided that the argument is not what can be done to the guidelines to deal with the problems due to hidden waypoints, but rather that hidden waypoints are trampling on her constitutional rights to place a cache and are proof that geocaching doesn't care about chindlren. Mothers (and sometimes fathers) whose child is being "denied" a cache placement because of the guidelines, tend to not be very receptive to ideas on how to proceed. Instead they turn into pit-bulls with lipstick (sorry, I believe it was a Republican who first coined that metaphor).

 

From the OP... Thank You. Very Well Put!!!

 

Thinking outside the box (ie: a way to see all waypoints on a map) to allow for spontaneous family geocaching to work.

Link to comment

Bearing in mind we have other threads on here mentioning co-ords being inaccurate and several threads from prospective COs annoyed at the proximity rule (there was one where it was down to 12 feet I read last week, can't find the thread right now) - I know what I'd do... I'd just submit co-ords that were 529ft from the nearest cache (keeping the reviewer happy) but make my hint / spiel helpful enough that cachers just forget the slightly inaccurate co-ords. Then everyone's a winner.

Actually, when someone knowingly and intentionally breaks the guidelines, no one's a winner.

^ ^ ^

This.

 

Is finding a way to cheat and get around the rules a habit we really want to teach our children?

 

--Larry

Not to mention how overjoyed the reviewer will feel once he gets wind of it

- and he eventually will. Why start off with a bad rep?

Link to comment

I don't think that spontaneity is being squashed here. What happens is that a cache placement ends up having a proximity issue. The solution is to go pick up your container and find a new spot that works.

 

Geocache placement doesn't have to be planned out 100%, but your contingency plan needs to be in order 100% if your hide needs to move. It is no different than finding out that you placed a cache on private property. Just be prepared to deal with proximity as it comes.

 

Try not to get fixated on a single hide. There are plenty of other places that caches can be placed and still not interfere with proximity to other caches.

 

I know how it feels to live in a cache-dense area. It makes it very hard to find spots for caches. But, the joy comes in moving on until you find another spot that works. I was stymied many times trying to place caches at first, so I had to get creative. And I had to start looking for places that had "room" for more caches, and placed them where I knew I could get back to do maintenance or move them if need be.

Link to comment

 

5) The cache in question actually takes about 1.5 hours of my time to get to and back. And that would be straight there and return. I work long days, and do quite a bit of business travel for work. When I'm home, every waking moment is spent with or for my kids.

 

So what you're saying is that it's a long drive to the area where the multi's hidden and you don't have alot of spare time?

 

OK, so if you place a cache in that area, how do you plan to do cache maintenance???

 

You wrote about 'spontaneous cache placement'. Cache ownership is much more involved than just 'My kids and I took a walk in the forest and we decided to place a cache'. Expect to visit GZ many times: when you do regular maintenance checks, when someone reports your cache damp or needing a new log or when the cache goes missing. Your kids will probably not be that interested in these maintenance visits, but, in placing the cache, you are committing to them. If you can't handle the hassle of doing the multi, you probably won't be able to handle the hassle of cache maintenance either.

Link to comment

5) The cache in question actually takes about 1.5 hours of my time to get to and back. And that would be straight there and return. I work long days, and do quite a bit of business travel for work. When I'm home, every waking moment is spent with or for my kids.

 

So what you're saying is that it's a long drive to the area where the multi's hidden and you don't have alot of spare time?

 

OK, so if you place a cache in that area, how do you plan to do cache maintenance???

 

The way I read that is the published coordinates and the first stage was 45 minutes away, but the final (where the OP wants to place the cache) is close to home. With no limit on the distance between the first stage of a multi and the final location, it's conceivable that one could get blocked from placing a cache 1/4 of a mile from home due to a multi cache that required driving hundreds of miles to the first stage to order to find out exactly where the final is located. My regular local PQ covers a radius of 50 miles so if someone created a multi with the first stage 60 miles away I wouldn't even be aware that the cache existed, and without the help of a reviewer I would have no idea where to search with a PQ to determine which caches was blocking a local placement.

Link to comment

 

5) The cache in question actually takes about 1.5 hours of my time to get to and back. And that would be straight there and return. I work long days, and do quite a bit of business travel for work. When I'm home, every waking moment is spent with or for my kids.

 

So what you're saying is that it's a long drive to the area where the multi's hidden and you don't have alot of spare time?

 

OK, so if you place a cache in that area, how do you plan to do cache maintenance???

 

You wrote about 'spontaneous cache placement'. Cache ownership is much more involved than just 'My kids and I took a walk in the forest and we decided to place a cache'. Expect to visit GZ many times: when you do regular maintenance checks, when someone reports your cache damp or needing a new log or when the cache goes missing. Your kids will probably not be that interested in these maintenance visits, but, in placing the cache, you are committing to them. If you can't handle the hassle of doing the multi, you probably won't be able to handle the hassle of cache maintenance either.

 

We have had a few hides for a couple of years now. I know what's involved, and my kids do come with me to maintain them. Like I mentioned in another post, we had to archive one of our hides, because it was continuously muggled, and we weren't going to keep on replacing the container, contents, and log. My kids came with me to replace the container the few times we did, as well as to return to the spot to finally archive the hide. I like to think with 400+ finds, we're getting pretty good at knowing what containers work in what situations, as well as the weather patterns in my area (no snow), and therefore am quite capable at creating nice hides that will be well protected from the elements.

 

The issue is that the location in question, was infringing upon a later stage of a multi-stage cache. The initial location of that multi-stage is many miles away. The only way to know I was infringing was to place the cache, and contact the reviewer. And that's what's taking away from spontaneous caching. Perhaps what we need is a way to either 1) relax the guidelines when a traditional bumps into a multi-stage, or 2) provide a means for a potential geo-cache hider to get all the offending waypoints at their location. Something as simple as a YES / NO screen on a smartphone app based on your current location would go a long way here. This isn't rocket science, and looking at the responses here, as well as other threads, I'm not the only one complaining / affected by this.

 

All others saying, you should talk to the reviewer BEFORE hiding a cache is missing the point. I don't eat, breath, and poop geocaching. I have a family and life outside of this hobby. I don't plan my vacations and free time around geocaching. This is a family hobby we do, so we can spend time as a family, doing something that the kids enjoy, and ensuring everyone has a healthy lifestyle (outdoor walks+trails suitable for young children).

 

PS: The CO of the other cache got back to me, and well there is no moving my hide by a few feet. Looks like I need to move it about 200' or so. So my great picnic spot where families like mine can take their kids to have a great afternoon, and maybe find a few caches will not happen, because of a later stage of a multi-stage cache, where the waypoint is not visible to anyone on the site... the only way to get that way point is to solve the puzzle (with a difficulty rating of 5) associated with the multi-stage. Reading the logs of that multi-stage, some people spent over a year searching for all the stages.

Link to comment

So the stage with the proximity issue is 300 ft away from your cache; just how much are you proposing the 528 proximity be relaxed? 50%?

 

One of the first caches I ever wanted to place would have been at the end of a park trail along a river. To my knowledge there has never been a cache on this trail and it is probably one of the less visited trails since it is a dead end. Unfortunately, there is another cache 200 ft away on a different trail. The distance between the two spots is thick woods and swamp. To go between the two spots by the shortest trail is probably 1000 ft or more. I was disappointed to discover this 3 years ago. A recent check shows the cache is still there in good shape although the CO is inactive. I will wait patiently and maybe the spot will eventually open up. I accept this as unfortunate but necessary. You should too.

 

A more productive line for the OP to pursue might be asking for a better way to check proximity for stages/PMO/unpublished caches rather than a change in proximity Guidelines.

Link to comment
Before Rosa Parks it was a guideline that black people sit at the back of the bus. BUt she wanted her gimme gimme gimme, and a few years later we realized that guideline was short sighted and indeed incorrect. Society's guidelines change when a person with strong conviction sees they are wrong, and fights for that change.

So, you are equating the guidelines of a privately owned company, (guidelines which the vast majority feel exist for good cause), with a human rights violation? Wow... I suppose you see yourself in the role of Rosa Parks? Honestly, I wasn't aware that hubris as large as that could be expressed by the written word. You have proven me wrong. <_<

Link to comment

So the stage with the proximity issue is 300 ft away from your cache; just how much are you proposing the 528 proximity be relaxed? 50%?

 

One of the first caches I ever wanted to place would have been at the end of a park trail along a river. To my knowledge there has never been a cache on this trail and it is probably one of the less visited trails since it is a dead end. Unfortunately, there is another cache 200 ft away on a different trail. The distance between the two spots is thick woods and swamp. To go between the two spots by the shortest trail is probably 1000 ft or more. I was disappointed to discover this 3 years ago. A recent check shows the cache is still there in good shape although the CO is inactive. I will wait patiently and maybe the spot will eventually open up. I accept this as unfortunate but necessary. You should too.

 

A more productive line for the OP to pursue might be asking for a better way to check proximity for stages/PMO/unpublished caches rather than a change in proximity Guidelines.

 

Re-read my previous message. I did propose something. Like a simple screen on your smartphone which says YES/NO you can place a cache here based on your location. Could be easily built into the geocaching app.

 

As for how much would I relax the rule: 100' separation between caches for traditional caches. I would think 100' is sufficient for all caches. If your cache migrates 50' or more, there's something wrong with the original hide. But what do I know. I would also completely remove the guideline for later stages of a multi-stage cache to affect traditional caches. Remember this is about trying to get more people involved, and having fun while at it. By increasing the difficulty level all you do is make the hobby more underground, not mainstream.

 

Case in point... Nintendo Wii took the gaming community by storm in 2006. It appealed to the casual gamer, and re-invigorated an industry going sideways. Since then, all other console manufacturers have added "casual-gaming" functionality to their consoles and portfolio (ie: Kinect, PS Move). Today, casual gaming, also known as your smartphone gaming is replacing consoles, whom are now only regulated to the "hard-core" gamer. What Nintendo did back then, and was continued by Apple and Google today, is make it easier for anyone to pick it up and enjoy. If all you do is make it harder, you will be pushed to the underground. In other words, I'm trying to help, by making it easier for the casual to get involved.

Link to comment
Before Rosa Parks it was a guideline that black people sit at the back of the bus. BUt she wanted her gimme gimme gimme, and a few years later we realized that guideline was short sighted and indeed incorrect. Society's guidelines change when a person with strong conviction sees they are wrong, and fights for that change.

So, you are equating the guidelines of a privately owned company, (guidelines which the vast majority feel exist for good cause), with a human rights violation? Wow... I suppose you see yourself in the role of Rosa Parks? Honestly, I wasn't aware that hubris as large as that could be expressed by the written word. You have proven me wrong. <_<

 

No I used a popular historical example of someone standing up against the "norm" and asking for change, based on what reality is. Don't try to word it any other way or read between the lines. You only do yourself a disservice.

 

ALso since I "pay" for my membership, I should be entitled to ask for change as well. Private or public makes no difference in this. The gov't is really just a massive private company, funded by it's membership (tax payers).

Link to comment
Before Rosa Parks it was a guideline that black people sit at the back of the bus. BUt she wanted her gimme gimme gimme, and a few years later we realized that guideline was short sighted and indeed incorrect. Society's guidelines change when a person with strong conviction sees they are wrong, and fights for that change.

So, you are equating the guidelines of a privately owned company, (guidelines which the vast majority feel exist for good cause), with a human rights violation? Wow... I suppose you see yourself in the role of Rosa Parks? Honestly, I wasn't aware that hubris as large as that could be expressed by the written word. You have proven me wrong. <_<

 

About the "guidelines which the vast majority feel exist for good cause"

 

Maybe the majority does... but the proximity of caches as well as their interaction with puzzle and multi-stage, seems to be the largest complaint as well. Does a private company which consistently ignore it's #1 complaint remain successful? Look at the first page of this forum category:

 

Proximity rule should not be affected by a multi-stage

Cacher dominating area

Well, that sucks

528 feet

Almost cleared out the area near hom already! with 50 finds

Unpublished Cache

When to Archive?

 

That's just the first page. When do you stop and say: "this is becoming a problem that needs to be addressed"?

Link to comment
Before Rosa Parks it was a guideline that black people sit at the back of the bus. BUt she wanted her gimme gimme gimme, and a few years later we realized that guideline was short sighted and indeed incorrect. Society's guidelines change when a person with strong conviction sees they are wrong, and fights for that change.

So, you are equating the guidelines of a privately owned company, (guidelines which the vast majority feel exist for good cause), with a human rights violation? Wow... I suppose you see yourself in the role of Rosa Parks? Honestly, I wasn't aware that hubris as large as that could be expressed by the written word. You have proven me wrong. <_<

 

About the "guidelines which the vast majority feel exist for good cause"

 

Maybe the majority does... but the proximity of caches as well as their interaction with puzzle and multi-stage, seems to be the largest complaint as well. Does a private company which consistently ignore it's #1 complaint remain successful? Look at the first page of this forum category:

 

Proximity rule should not be affected by a multi-stage

Cacher dominating area

Well, that sucks

528 feet

Almost cleared out the area near hom already! with 50 finds

Unpublished Cache

When to Archive?

 

That's just the first page. When do you stop and say: "this is becoming a problem that needs to be addressed"?

This isn't a problem that needs to be addressed, you need to find another spot to hide your cache. Just like the rest of those players in those threads. Plain and simple.

Link to comment
Before Rosa Parks it was a guideline that black people sit at the back of the bus. BUt she wanted her gimme gimme gimme, and a few years later we realized that guideline was short sighted and indeed incorrect. Society's guidelines change when a person with strong conviction sees they are wrong, and fights for that change.

So, you are equating the guidelines of a privately owned company, (guidelines which the vast majority feel exist for good cause), with a human rights violation? Wow... I suppose you see yourself in the role of Rosa Parks? Honestly, I wasn't aware that hubris as large as that could be expressed by the written word. You have proven me wrong. <_<

 

About the "guidelines which the vast majority feel exist for good cause"

 

Maybe the majority does... but the proximity of caches as well as their interaction with puzzle and multi-stage, seems to be the largest complaint as well. Does a private company which consistently ignore it's #1 complaint remain successful? Look at the first page of this forum category:

 

Proximity rule should not be affected by a multi-stage

Cacher dominating area

Well, that sucks

528 feet

Almost cleared out the area near hom already! with 50 finds

Unpublished Cache

When to Archive?

 

That's just the first page. When do you stop and say: "this is becoming a problem that needs to be addressed"?

 

Whether or not proximity is the largest area of complaint is open to debate, it doesn't seem clear cut to me. However there have recently been only two queries raised on this subject and the vast majority of respondents on this and the 528 feet thread agree that the proximity guideline is OK as it is, and only a very few think something needs to change. To me this doesn't constitute a problem that needs to be addressed.

Link to comment

 

About the "guidelines which the vast majority feel exist for good cause"

 

Maybe the majority does... but the proximity of caches as well as their interaction with puzzle and multi-stage, seems to be the largest complaint as well. Does a private company which consistently ignore it's #1 complaint remain successful? Look at the first page of this forum category:

 

Proximity rule should not be affected by a multi-stage

Cacher dominating area

Well, that sucks

528 feet

Almost cleared out the area near hom already! with 50 finds

Unpublished Cache

When to Archive?

 

That's just the first page. When do you stop and say: "this is becoming a problem that needs to be addressed"?

 

If you love this spot so much, then place a cache 300' away. That's not that far to walk from a picnic area to find a cache. You can then list the coordinates for the picnic area on your cache description, and mention how nice it would be to take a break or picnic at those coordinates. It really is that simple.

 

Now, let's address the last part of the above post:

Just because some people come on the forums and mention proximity as an issue (I use "mention" to replace words I'd rather use, which fit much better...) doesn't mean that it is an issue that needs to be "fixed" by reducing the saturation guidelines. What is means is that a few people feel that they need to come to the forums to complain mention that they don't like the guidelines that the majority of the players see as an important and solid guideline for the game. This guideline is fundamental. This guideline is the foundation of agreement that has allowed us to play on lands that otherwise would say, "heck no!" to more caches per square foot.

 

Do realize that the number of threads in this topic on the subject of saturation and proximity does not indicate a sea change for that guideline on the horizon. It's just not going to happen based on a few threads where people are, really, just complaining about how they wanted to place a cache but couldn't. Until the argument for changing the saturation guidelines to allow a reduction in distance is based on a more substantial reason which actually affects the game of Geocaching for the better, it isn't a valid to say the number of thread complaints equals a need for change.

 

Really, you have only a few choices: 1) Move on: it's going to be ok. 2) Place your cache where it meets the proximity and saturation guidelines, yet notes your neato place that you want to feature. 3) Quit. Pack up. Take your game play elsewhere.

 

What's it going to be?

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

Re-read my previous message. I did propose something. Like a simple screen on your smartphone which says YES/NO you can place a cache here based on your location. Could be easily built into the geocaching app.

 

That's never going to happen as it would allow people to track down puzzle/multi caches by brute force.

Link to comment

 

About the "guidelines which the vast majority feel exist for good cause"

 

Maybe the majority does... but the proximity of caches as well as their interaction with puzzle and multi-stage, seems to be the largest complaint as well. Does a private company which consistently ignore it's #1 complaint remain successful? Look at the first page of this forum category:

 

Proximity rule should not be affected by a multi-stage

Cacher dominating area

Well, that sucks

528 feet

Almost cleared out the area near hom already! with 50 finds

Unpublished Cache

When to Archive?

 

That's just the first page. When do you stop and say: "this is becoming a problem that needs to be addressed"?

 

If you love this spot so much, then place a cache 300' away. That's not that far to walk from a picnic area to find a cache. You can then list the coordinates for the picnic area on your cache description, and mention how nice it would be to take a break or picnic at those coordinates. It really is that simple.

 

Now, let's address the last part of the above post:

Just because some people come on the forums and mention proximity as an issue (I use "mention" to replace words I'd rather use, which fit much better...) doesn't mean that it is an issue that needs to be "fixed" by reducing the saturation guidelines. What is means is that a few people feel that they need to come to the forums to complain mention that they don't like the guidelines that the majority of the players see as an important and solid guideline for the game. This guideline is fundamental. This guideline is the foundation of agreement that has allowed us to play on lands that otherwise would say, "heck no!" to more caches per square foot.

 

Do realize that the number of threads in this topic on the subject of saturation and proximity does not indicate a sea change for that guideline on the horizon. It's just not going to happen based on a few threads where people are, really, just complaining about how they wanted to place a cache but couldn't. Until the argument for changing the saturation guidelines to allow a reduction in distance is based on a more substantial reason which actually affects the game of Geocaching for the better, it isn't a valid to say the number of thread complaints equals a need for change.

 

Really, you have only a few choices: 1) Move on: it's going to be ok. 2) Place your cache where it meets the proximity and saturation guidelines, yet notes your neato place that you want to feature. 3) Quit. Pack up. Take your game play elsewhere.

 

What's it going to be?

 

+1

Link to comment

I previously cautioned against letting politics creep into a discussion of the guidelines governing a hobby. Since we are straying in that direction again, and since there are other threads open about the Cache Saturation Guideline, I am closing this one. The OP is advised not to discuss this cache further in the forums.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...